If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This would be true in a "dumb"system that transmitted the signal directly to the noid. In modern markers this is not the case. The switch signals are sent to the board logic which determines when the noid signals are sent. The filtering you are referring to (software debounce) is a number in milliseconds that the software is programmed to ignore additional signals after the first. Typically it looks like this:
delay(200);
where 200 is a fixed value. Variable debounce is one of the possible explanations for what I'm seeing (but not the most likely one IMO. Variable debounce looks like this:
int debounce = 200;
//elsewhere in the code we would find something like this
if((millis() - lastTriggerPullMillis) < bounceLoweringThreshhold){
debounce = 50;
}
//elsewhere we would find the debounce statement:
delay(debounce);
In my hastily typed example the software is checking to see how recently the last full switch signal occurred and is lowering the variable integer used to debounce the switch. It would not be much more complicated than than that.

I have reason to believe that (at least in most cases) it is signal thresholding that is the culprit variable. This is irrelevant to the results. BPS second limits actually allow the manufacturers to be more flagrant. What they aught to do is disregard any switch pull that exceeded the cap. What they do instead is say:
if(ROF > 12.5)
ROF = 12.5;

Now the sound signature that used to be a tell tale sign of cheater modes just sounds like the marker firing at the capped rate.

If the "profesional" leagues were serious about enforcing 1 shot 1 pull and the rof cap, they would insist on markers using hardware debounce.

i agree completely. esp about using a hardware low pass filter, not a software setting for debounce.

i was merely stating that all boards do use some kind of switch filtering, typically in the board logic, and typically a delay. and if they didn't, then you would have one of those "dumb" boards, but in reality those kind of boards do not exist because, the gun would not function, because it would attempt to start the firing cycle with each trigger event. you can imagine how this would end. depending on the operation of the gun, it would be like short stroking a gun 5 or 6 times in so many milliseconds ... ew. it might manifest in the best case as bad efficiency and consistency, at worst, as chopping, clipping etc etc. again, depends on the function of the gun as well.

this was actually a major problem in the first generation of electronic guns, and why all of them, and all guns today, use some form of switch filtering system.

"because every vengeful cop with a lesbian daughter, is having a bad day, and looking for someone to blame"

i agree completely. esp about using a hardware low pass filter, not a software setting for debounce.

i was merely stating that all boards do use some kind of switch filtering, typically in the board logic, and typically a delay. and if they didn't, then you would have one of those "dumb" boards, but in reality those kind of boards do not exist because, the gun would not function, because it would attempt to start the firing cycle with each trigger event. you can imagine how this would end. depending on the operation of the gun, it would be like short stroking a gun 5 or 6 times in so many milliseconds ... ew. it might manifest in the best case as bad efficiency and consistency, at worst, as chopping, clipping etc etc. again, depends on the function of the gun as well.

this was actually a major problem in the first generation of electronic guns, and why all of them, and all guns today, use some form of switch filtering system.

Agreed again, but I don't have to imagine it, I built one. I had a working IC'less trigger system that used a hardware debounce configuration that actually worked quite well and had working eyes (well, a break beam eye out of an arcade ticket dispenser that would ultimately be replaced by eyes). Trouble was, it was utterly unwalkable above 7-8 bps. In theory It should be capable of a cycle speed in the 30's. The cycles were erratic, sounding very much like when someone "walks" a pneumag or ULT.

That is what started me on my little quest that ultimately led to this conversation. I have since removed the "eyes" and noid. I replaced the later with an led to prove to people that without the help of the software they could not "walk" the trigger with any kind of consistency.

Agreed again, but I don't have to imagine it, I built one. I had a working IC'less trigger system that used a hardware debounce configuration that actually worked quite well and had working eyes (well, a break beam eye out of an arcade ticket dispenser that would ultimately be replaced by eyes). Trouble was, it was utterly unwalkable above 7-8 bps. In theory It should be capable of a cycle speed in the 30's. The cycles were erratic, sounding very much like when someone "walks" a pneumag or ULT.

That is what started me on my little quest that ultimately led to this conversation. I have since removed the "eyes" and noid. I replaced the later with an led to prove to people that without the help of the software they could not "walk" the trigger with any kind of consistency.

i was proposing imagining a gun without switch filtering

and i agree, most people can't walk the trigger for ****. the best way to show this, i think is high speed video. simon did some work on this a while back, posted a few videos.

but again, i don't think this is a problem with the gun, as much as a problem with the users, and the policing bodies. there is nothing inherently wrong with the technology, an electronic trigger, on any gun, can be made to be a true one shot per pull trigger. its that users dont want that, and fields/leagues don't care enough to force them to.

i was proposing imagining a gun without switch filtering
its that users dont want that, and fields/leagues don't care enough to force them to.

Exactly! I totally understand that some (even most) people have no issue with this at all. I just kind of think it's a shame and takes a little integrity out of the game. There was a time when trigger skill was a factor in paintball. Now these things are "optimized" so a guy off the street can practice for 10-20 seconds and be rippin' with the best of them. (Yes I know I'm exaggerating).

Agreed again, but I don't have to imagine it, I built one. I had a working IC'less trigger system that used a hardware debounce configuration that actually worked quite well and had working eyes (well, a break beam eye out of an arcade ticket dispenser that would ultimately be replaced by eyes). Trouble was, it was utterly unwalkable above 7-8 bps. In theory It should be capable of a cycle speed in the 30's. The cycles were erratic, sounding very much like when someone "walks" a pneumag or ULT.

That is what started me on my little quest that ultimately led to this conversation. I have since removed the "eyes" and noid. I replaced the later with an led to prove to people that without the help of the software they could not "walk" the trigger with any kind of consistency.

"IC'less"; is that no integrated circuits at all, or just no microprocessor? A pair of timers (556 chip) works fine and is not a microprocessor and only partially digital. It lacks something you two haven't addressed yet though, which is shot buffering.

When you actually "filter" switch response, you are throwing bounces and flailing finger pulls in the trash. That's where your poor trigger walking is exposed. Most boards will buffer any trigger "pulls" that occur during the filter window and apply them as a single pull at the end of the filter window, making your flailing fingers look quite professional. It's when you don't actually let the trigger up that you can flail away and still not see a shot. Buffering is the only way you ever maintain 13.5 bps with consistency, until you get your fingers trained for 13.49 bps.

Exactly! I totally understand that some (even most) people have no issue with this at all. I just kind of think it's a shame and takes a little integrity out of the game. There was a time when trigger skill was a factor in paintball. Now these things are "optimized" so a guy off the street can practice for 10-20 seconds and be rippin' with the best of them. (Yes I know I'm exaggerating).

no, no, you first argument is that every electronic gun inherently cheats. that is not the case.

no, no, you first argument is that every electronic gun inherently cheats. that is not the case.
the problem as always is the human component

I'm not sure we are having a disconnect. They do not cheat unless programed to do so, which in my limited testing has been always. I define cheating for the purposes of this conversation as a marker producing more shots than the user produces trigger pulls. They are not cheating by virtue of being electronic. They are being programmed to cheat.

Originally Posted by Spider-TW

"IC'less"; is that no integrated circuits at all, or just no microprocessor? A pair of timers (556 chip) works fine and is not a microprocessor and only partially digital. It lacks something you two haven't addressed yet though, which is shot buffering.

When you actually "filter" switch response, you are throwing bounces and flailing finger pulls in the trash. That's where your poor trigger walking is exposed. Most boards will buffer any trigger "pulls" that occur during the filter window and apply them as a single pull at the end of the filter window, making your flailing fingers look quite professional. It's when you don't actually let the trigger up that you can flail away and still not see a shot. Buffering is the only way you ever maintain 13.5 bps with consistency, until you get your fingers trained for 13.49 bps.

Just a couple of resistors and a couple of Capacitors really. You'll have to forgive me if I get terminology wrong, I'm entirely self taught. I found a guide online to hardware debounce a switch in this fashion and I simply followed the instructions. It ignores additional switch pulls until a capacitor has recharged after the previous one. If I did my math right it should allow for up to 30.3- cps. I was able to get it into the 20's using an Arduino board to virtually pull the trigger, but with humans the result is rather pathetic.

I can't think of a reliable way to buffer shots without a microprocessor. But that goes to my point since the shots that require buffering would have been short strokes or chops in a mechanical system.

The modes which are not supposed to be cheating are still cheating. 15 markers set to the modes the operators believed to be tourney legal true semi. 15/15 were adding shots at higher rates of fire. The worst offender began this activity at 5cps (aftermarket board). The best at 9cps. All markers manufactured between 2003 and 2009. Something may have changed since then, but since players aren't complaining that the new stuff is harder to walk, I doubt it.

IMO buffering, eyes, ramping, intent listening (my term for the type of cheating I have discribed), these are all electronic band aids for the limitations of the player and the platform.

The modes which are not supposed to be cheating are still cheating. 15 markers set to the modes the operators believed to be tourney legal true semi. 15/15 were adding shots at higher rates of fire. The worst offender began this activity at 5cps (aftermarket board). The best at 9cps. All markers manufactured between 2003 and 2009. Something may have changed since then, but since players aren't complaining that the new stuff is harder to walk, I doubt it.

IMO buffering, eyes, ramping, intent listening (my term for the type of cheating I have discribed), these are all electronic band aids for the limitations of the player and the platform.

but again, there is a setting that will give you a true legal semi auto. again, its an operator error, not an inherent thing with electronics in guns.

it has nothing to do with my word vs theres. only that the settings were not legal, while it was possible for the settings to be legal. that makes it operator error, not technological error.

you also have not posted the testing methods, nor the equipment and settings being tested, i'd like to see that.

You are working under the assumption that the "legal" setting performs legally (1 pull 1 shot). This is contrary to my findings. As far as sharing my results, I have already stated that I won't and why. I didn't have altruistic motives when I did the testing. Myself, and the gentleman who arranged the markers to be tested saw it as an opportunity to make money. While I could probably sell a dozen or so "idiot" trigger systems to people here, if frames with microprocessors were deemed against the rules, we could make some actual money.

It will likely never happen for scads of reasons (several of them outlined here). You don't take the threat of litigation seriously, I have a business, a wife, and children, I cannot afford to take those kinds of chances.

As for my equipment and methods, sure:http://arduino.cc/http://processing.org/
A few alligator clips and a USB cable.
I set up a passive switch listener for both the trigger switch and solenoid. Was surprised that this proved adequate for almost every setup. I programmed the Arduino to report over virtual serial (USB) to my processing app which formatted the data into readable console lines. The first version worked a bit differently but the version we ultimately used printed the data like this:
1 Second starting at (startmillis) and ending at (endmillis)
x switch / x noid

That's it. When the RoF increased we started to see the number on the right consistently exceeding the number on the left. I can't speak to the settings because none of the markers tested were mine, nor did I alter the settings in any way. We only asked that those who would let us test their guns set them to "tourney legal semi". Three of the guns tested belonged to the gentleman I mentioned earlier and there is absolutely no way he does not know how to set his equipment properly.

who does not produce a board without switch filtering, name names please.

because a board without switch filtering will not make a paintball gun work. period. this was actually a problem with getting the original electronic paintball guns work.

so what, you don't believe me and yet i prove at least 3 examples. so change the rules when you are proven wrong but not because of semantics, cause you can't admit when you are wrong?

there was no adjustment on the bounce, as there was none. couldn't tell you if it was built in, as ICD had a system crash that all their programming was lost, so i can't get a copy of the actual software. so there might be a filtering of sorts or maybe a delay, but the electronics gives nothing for that adjustment, which was your argument. show me a board without that adjustments in filtering or bounce. i did and yet i'm wrong. good one Gordon. admittedly, i don't know electronics, the programming nor the hardware, but sometimes you do have to believe that anonymous person that disagrees with you, cause you never know what they actually might know.

i could say that we could continue this elsewhere, but i have a bit o history with Gordon already. so the invitation is unneeded. whether its here or PBN, or any other number of forums, his words i do not fear. he likes facts, only when they serve him. when they are used against him, he "doesn't like it". so i will prove him wrong when he missteps. i just wished he did not assume, it would save him many a problem and go a long way to his credibility. for when a man thinks he learned all that he can, he is ignorant on what he still has to learn...

so what, you don't believe me and yet i prove at least 3 examples. so change the rules when you are proven wrong but not because of semantics, cause you can't admit when you are wrong?

there was no adjustment on the bounce, as there was none. couldn't tell you if it was built in, as ICD had a system crash that all their programming was lost, so i can't get a copy of the actual software. so there might be a filtering of sorts or maybe a delay, but the electronics gives nothing for that adjustment, which was your argument. show me a board without that adjustments in filtering or bounce. i did and yet i'm wrong. good one Gordon. admittedly, i don't know electronics, the programming nor the hardware, but sometimes you do have to believe that anonymous person that disagrees with you, cause you never know what they actually might know.

your unfamiliarity with the intricacies of paintball-gun board programing does not mean you have provided 3 examples. contrary to what you claim, none of those boards are switch filter free. switch filtering does not need to be adjustable, to be present. all of those boards, in fact, all paintball gun boards provide some kind of switch filtering, it is inherent in the design and usage of electrical switches to trigging paint guns. you can look back at my posts, i have not changed the criteria one bit. in fact, i just did the dirty work for you:

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

who does not produce a board without switch filtering, name names please.

because a board without switch filtering will not make a paintball gun work. period. this was actually a problem with getting the original electronic paintball guns work.

Please cite a post of mine where i claim all boards have adjustable debounce. it is you who have changed the parameters of the challenge, in an attempt to win it.

Originally Posted by pgop2.0

You are working under the assumption that the "legal" setting performs legally (1 pull 1 shot). This is contrary to my findings. As far as sharing my results, I have already stated that I won't and why. I didn't have altruistic motives when I did the testing. Myself, and the gentleman who arranged the markers to be tested saw it as an opportunity to make money. While I could probably sell a dozen or so "idiot" trigger systems to people here, if frames with microprocessors were deemed against the rules, we could make some actual money.

It will likely never happen for scads of reasons (several of them outlined here). You don't take the threat of litigation seriously, I have a business, a wife, and children, I cannot afford to take those kinds of chances.

As for my equipment and methods, sure:http://arduino.cc/http://processing.org/
A few alligator clips and a USB cable.
I set up a passive switch listener for both the trigger switch and solenoid. Was surprised that this proved adequate for almost every setup. I programmed the Arduino to report over virtual serial (USB) to my processing app which formatted the data into readable console lines. The first version worked a bit differently but the version we ultimately used printed the data like this:
1 Second starting at (startmillis) and ending at (endmillis)
x switch / x noid

That's it. When the RoF increased we started to see the number on the right consistently exceeding the number on the left. I can't speak to the settings because none of the markers tested were mine, nor did I alter the settings in any way. We only asked that those who would let us test their guns set them to "tourney legal semi". Three of the guns tested belonged to the gentleman I mentioned earlier and there is absolutely no way he does not know how to set his equipment properly.

well the NPPL robot disagrees, as i have never seen a report of a gun that they could not make legal with that tool. not just including stock boards, but also aftermarket boards (this was int he middle of the aftermarket board era), tadao, virtue etc etc.

again, are you familiar with the robot? it was designed to catch exactly this thing. also, without having played around with the settings, how can you claim the boards cheat all the time? i am also still calling BS on the threatened to be sued thing, as this is a topic often discussed back then, and as i said, all the major gun and board companies, and the NPPL were well aware of it.

I'm pretty biased, but I do use an e-mag for my everyday gun. It doesn't make sense if I compare it to any other guns out there, but I really like the nostalgic feel of playing with an e-mag. At this years Tunaball I had a bunch of friends borrow my other e-mags and I think they had a tough time adjusting their play when they went up against any modern day electro.

^this is correct. Almost all momentary switches require some type of debounce or they will send multiple partial signals.

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

well the NPPL robot disagrees, as i have never seen a report of a gun that they could not make legal with that tool. not just including stock boards, but also aftermarket boards (this was int he middle of the aftermarket board era), tadao, virtue etc etc.

again, are you familiar with the robot? it was designed to catch exactly this thing. also, without having played around with the settings, how can you claim the boards cheat all the time? i am also still calling BS on the threatened to be sued thing, as this is a topic often discussed back then, and as i said, all the major gun and board companies, and the NPPL were well aware of it.

Sorry for not replying to the robot question earlier. No, I was not familiar with it. I'm not familiar with how it functioned (pushing the trigger with a solenoid? Rubber fingers on an rotary?). It's possible that it's method produced less or different switch noise than would a human walking the trigger. But that is just me me thinking out loud (er... in type). It's also possible, as a friend of mine pointed out after reading this thread, that my rig was somehow adding noise to the system. While unlikely because any added noise should have shown up at lower RoF, I'm still going to set up another test to attempt to rule that out.

With regards to playing with the settings, you are correct, I cannot claim that they cheat all the time. What I can claim is that they cheat on settings that their users believe they do not.

I'm not sure if you are calling BS on the threat of suit (i.e. they won't sue) or BS on it having happened. Makes no difference to me. I'm offering my observations on a take it or leave it basis.

Let me see if we can find some common ground here. For the sake of this point I will assume that you are correct and that all electronic markers can be set up for bounce free true semi that works as it is supposed to. Manufacturers could easily and at very low cost use hardware to debounce the trigger while still allowing for cycle speeds in the 30's. It seems to me that there are only two good reasons not to; 1) software debounce is easier which is why almost all systems that incorporate momentary switches use it. 2) To allow players to cheat.

With bounce being as big an issue as it evidently was, why did the manufacturers not use hardware debounce? My theory: In the eyes of the marketplace "Guaranteed not to bounce" and/or "no adjustable bounce" are not selling points. Players want to cheat and get away with it (or at least have the option to). They want a competitive edge. Markers are designed to be cheat capable because that is what the marketplace wants. So we can place the blame anywhere we like, there is enough to go around. Electronic markers (even if all of my results are wrong) are designed and sold with the cheater in mind.

That should be considerably easier to accept than my earlier statement that electro's were inherently cheatsy.

^this is correct. Almost all momentary switches require some type of debounce or they will send multiple partial signals.

Sorry for not replying to the robot question earlier. No, I was not familiar with it. I'm not familiar with how it functioned (pushing the trigger with a solenoid? Rubber fingers on an rotary?). It's possible that it's method produced less or different switch noise than would a human walking the trigger. But that is just me me thinking out loud (er... in type). It's also possible, as a friend of mine pointed out after reading this thread, that my rig was somehow adding noise to the system. While unlikely because any added noise should have shown up at lower RoF, I'm still going to set up another test to attempt to rule that out.

With regards to playing with the settings, you are correct, I cannot claim that they cheat all the time. What I can claim is that they cheat on settings that their users believe they do not.

I'm not sure if you are calling BS on the threat of suit (i.e. they won't sue) or BS on it having happened. Makes no difference to me. I'm offering my observations on a take it or leave it basis.

Let me see if we can find some common ground here. For the sake of this point I will assume that you are correct and that all electronic markers can be set up for bounce free true semi that works as it is supposed to. Manufacturers could easily and at very low cost use hardware to debounce the trigger while still allowing for cycle speeds in the 30's. It seems to me that there are only two good reasons not to; 1) software debounce is easier which is why almost all systems that incorporate momentary switches use it. 2) To allow players to cheat.

With bounce being as big an issue as it evidently was, why did the manufacturers not use hardware debounce? My theory: In the eyes of the marketplace "Guaranteed not to bounce" and/or "no adjustable bounce" are not selling points. Players want to cheat and get away with it (or at least have the option to). They want a competitive edge. Markers are designed to be cheat capable because that is what the marketplace wants. So we can place the blame anywhere we like, there is enough to go around. Electronic markers (even if all of my results are wrong) are designed and sold with the cheater in mind.

That should be considerably easier to accept than my earlier statement that electro's were inherently cheatsy.

agreed, which is why i said its not a technical problem, its a user problem.